CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.

180 Taxmann 87High Court2009#2980 most cited

What is CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. · capital vs revenue expenditure · advertisement films · ongoing business · business not commenced · enduring benefit test · section 22 · section 234 · section 254(1) · section 92C(3)

Also reported as

315 ITR 134

Sections most often in play

Section 22Section 234Section 254(1)Section 92C(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 2(42c)section 41(2)test of enduring benefitsection 50bsection 38section 43(6)opening wdvr&d expenditureinitial assessment yearenduring benefitslump sale

Judgments citing CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited Addl. CIT, Range 7(1) v. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai PAN: AAACH2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented by : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented by : Shri Rajneesh Yadav Date of Hearing : 19 July 2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2022 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against direction of the Dispute…

DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi vs. Magic Bricks Reality Services Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6295/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)

…ascertain whether any 'brand name' was created. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Liberty Group Marketing Division (315 ITR 125) and the Bombay High Court in the case of Geoffrey Manner and Co. Ltd. (315 ITR 134). The judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Adidas India Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 256 (Delhi) recognized that brand promotion exercises undertaken through media campaigns, schemes, programmes etc are essential for propagation of the brand. Similar view has been taken by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Modi Revlon Pvt.lt…

L & T Seawoods Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 17/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 17/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) L & T Seawoods Ltd. 2Nd Floor, L & T House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcl4524C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-1(2)(2), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02.11.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Findings Of Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of :

For Appellant: Sh. Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37

…g, treating such expenditure as revenue in nature?" The Hon’ble Court answered the question in favour of the assessee by observing as under: “(e) We find that an identical issue had arisen before this Court in case of CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134/180 Taxman 87 (Bom.), wherein the Court was considering a question whether the expenses incurred by the Respondent-Assessee therein for making advertisement films is to be treated as a capital or revenue expenditure. This Court opined that the correct test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that wh…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

…o corporate brand image which is capital expenditure and for coming to this conclusion, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC) and CIT v/s Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd., [2009] 315 ITR 134. This has been confirmed by the DRP also. 26. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has been incurring these expenses every year which has been allowed by the department and, secondly, the total advertisement and promotion expenses is only 3.28% of the total sales which is much less. Reliance was placed by h…

M/S Infosys Bpm Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2884/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…he expenditure incurred towards advertisements, sales and marketing, holding various seminars and exhibitions are in relation to ongoing business of assessee. As held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd reported in (2009) 180 Taxmann 87 that corrected test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that when, the same was incurred in respect of an ongoing business of assessee, it is revenue. On the other hand, when expenditures incurred in respect of a brand which is to be used in a business which is yet to be commenced, it is M/s. Inf…

M/S Infosys Bpm Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2600/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…e expenditure incurred towards advertisements sales and marketing, holding various seminars and exhibitions are in relation to ongoing business of assessee. As held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 180 Taxmann 87 that corrected test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that when the same was incurred in respect of an ongoing business of assessee, it is revenue. On the other hand, when expenditures incurred in respect of a brand which is to be used in a business which is yet to be commenced, it is capital e…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…man 456 (Del. HC) vi. CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd.: ITA No.319,1185,1448,1822 & 2091 of 2010 vii. CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd: 335 ITR 29 (Delhi) viii. CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agr…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…man 456 (Del. HC) vi. CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd.: ITA No.319,1185,1448,1822 & 2091 of 2010 vii. CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd: 335 ITR 29 (Delhi) viii. CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agr…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…man 456 (Del. HC) vi. CIT v. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd.: ITA No.319,1185,1448,1822 & 2091 of 2010 vii. CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd: 335 ITR 29 (Delhi) viii. CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agr…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. United Spirits Limited, UB Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R PER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, A.M. : The…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…advertisements, sales and marketing, holding various seminars ITA Nos.1333 & 1367(B)/2014 30 and exhibitions are in relation to ongoing business of assessee. As held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd reported in (2009) 180 Taxmann 87 that corrected test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that when, the same was incurred in respect of an ongoing business of assessee, it is revenue. On the other hand, when expenditures incurred in respect of a brand which is to be used in a business which is yet to be commenced, it is capital…

Nivea India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 903/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal /Dhanesh Bafna and Ms.Hirali DesaiFor Respondent: S/Shri V. Janardhanan -DR
Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं रिवश रिवश सूद सूद, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं रिवश रिवश सूद सूद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7744/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संस…

Ambit Corporate Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 1096/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…rtisement cannot be allowed as Revenue expenditure. ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 (e) We find that an identical issue had arisen before this Court in case of CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134/180 Taxman 87 (Bom.), wherein the Court was considering a question whether the expenses incurred by the Respondent- Assessee therein for making advertisement films is to be treated as a capital or revenue expenditure. This Court opined that the correct test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that w…

Ambit Corporate Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 1794/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…rtisement cannot be allowed as Revenue expenditure. ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 (e) We find that an identical issue had arisen before this Court in case of CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134/180 Taxman 87 (Bom.), wherein the Court was considering a question whether the expenses incurred by the Respondent- Assessee therein for making advertisement films is to be treated as a capital or revenue expenditure. This Court opined that the correct test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that w…

Ambit Corporate Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 6250/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…rtisement cannot be allowed as Revenue expenditure. ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 (e) We find that an identical issue had arisen before this Court in case of CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134/180 Taxman 87 (Bom.), wherein the Court was considering a question whether the expenses incurred by the Respondent- Assessee therein for making advertisement films is to be treated as a capital or revenue expenditure. This Court opined that the correct test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that w…

Addl.C.I.T.3(1), Mumbai vs. Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of 14

ITA 5991/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Ambit Corporate Finance Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Ambit House, 1St Floor, 449, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400 020 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaaca8834B

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)

…rtisement cannot be allowed as Revenue expenditure. ITA No. 1794/Mum/2014, Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 11-12 (e) We find that an identical issue had arisen before this Court in case of CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134/180 Taxman 87 (Bom.), wherein the Court was considering a question whether the expenses incurred by the Respondent- Assessee therein for making advertisement films is to be treated as a capital or revenue expenditure. This Court opined that the correct test to be applied in respect of expenditure incurred for making advertisement films was that w…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4252/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaidcit Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. A Circle-6(1), F- 26, Connaught Place New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aafcm1533J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rachna Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. A Circle-6(1), F- 26, Connaught Place New Delhi Vs. New Delhi GIR/PAN: AAFCM1533J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Rachna Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advs. Date of hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2017 O R D E R PER BEENA A. PILLAI, J.M : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by revenue against order dated 19.05.2014 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-9, New Delhi,…

Future Capital Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2801/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Capital First Ltd. Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) M/S. Capital First Ltd. (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manish DesaiFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…aim and held the expenditure to be capital in nature and allowed depreciation thereon. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 134 (Bom). 5.3.2 According to the assessee the above expenditure of `70,50,500/- incurred towards making a short commercial advertisement film is a revenue expenditure which did not bring into existence any capital asset or benefit of enduring nature to the assessee. The said expense has made only with respect to its ongoing business and therefore is…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Future Capital Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2137/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Capital First Ltd. Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) M/S. Capital First Ltd. (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manish DesaiFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…aim and held the expenditure to be capital in nature and allowed depreciation thereon. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 134 (Bom). 5.3.2 According to the assessee the above expenditure of `70,50,500/- incurred towards making a short commercial advertisement film is a revenue expenditure which did not bring into existence any capital asset or benefit of enduring nature to the assessee. The said expense has made only with respect to its ongoing business and therefore is…

CIT vs. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd

ITA/833/2011HC Delhi10 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 143(2)

…question as to whether the expenditure incurred on ad film is to be treated as capital or revenue in nature. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties on this issue. The assessee has placed reliance on the case of CIT v Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. 315 ITR 134 (2009); Patel International Films Ltd. 102 ITR 219 and CIT v Patel International Films Ltd. 102 ITR 219. On the other hand, revenue has placed reliance on CIT v Bose Corporation India Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.1494 of 2010). We have perused the judgments cited by the parties. The case of Patel Engineering (supra) was also referred to and discussed i…